Hogge Wild posted:How did Arianism differ from Catholicism, why was it so popular and what led to its end? I can't post RN but Macculloch loves this topic and has some videos about it on youtube.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:I can't post RN but Macculloch loves this topic and has some videos about it on youtube. ask the religion thread, friends
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How did Arianism differ from Catholicism, why was it so popular and what led to its end? The Emperor got so tired of people fighting in the streets over theology that he set up a committee to decide what was Christian and what wasn't. Catholicism was the result (although it has drifted over the millennia).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How did Arianism differ from Catholicism, why was it so popular and what led to its end? The core concept is that Christ was not himself divine, although he was still the son of god and had power through that. There's a bunch of other differences from mainstream Christianity of the times and now, but that's the most important part. Why was it so popular? Well why were any other of the multitudinous strains of Christianity popular? It probably just made sense to a lot of people, and it was spread by a lot of missionary work to peoples who hadn't been Christian at all. Those sorts of people would of course have no reason to have a problem with what the missionary said Christianity was. You have to remember that it first got proposed and spread many decades before Christianity was established as a state religion for the Romans, so during periods of both persecution and just tolerance of Christianity as a whole there wasn't the sort of power to crush the Arian dissent that would be gained later on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How did Arianism differ from Catholicism, why was it so popular and what led to its end? Arianism is a non-trinitarian form of Christianity. Jesus is divine, but he is lesser than God and only divine because God says so. It's a persistent interpretation because the Trinity isn't a very straightforward concept - really, many modern Christians are functionally Arian in how they conceive of the relationship between the Father and the Son as interaction between two beings rather than two parts of one being. It's something particularly pedantic and classist theologians have always loved to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:How did Arianism differ from Catholicism, why was it so popular and what led to its end? In the most basic premise, Arianism mostly rejected the Trinity "Father/Son/Holy Ghost" In that all are co-existent and eternal with one another. My theology teacher would cry at this explanation, but essentially Nicene doctrine is that God/Jesus etc. are one and the same Jesus Christ wasn't created by god, instead he was always present within "God". In Arianism, Jesus was created by God and is separate albeit similar, but was not coexistent with god for eternity and the father and son are distinct entities rather than being I guess "aspects" of one being. I think its popularity was it is alot easier to wrap your head around than the concept of the trinity, in modern day most Christians who aren't actually theologians generally view Jesus this way and its easy to see why. The language of Father and Son generally steer you towards seeing them as distinct entities. Nicene Christians were more "established" and had the support of the Roman Empire especially in the East. When Justinian launched his great reconquest of the west he smashed two of the most powerful Arian Kingdoms (Ostrogoths and Vandals) and this lead to most other Germanic tribes adopting Nicene beliefs in an attempt to cozy up to the the still very powerful ERE and what would become the Catholic Church. Jack2142 fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Some of the Aryan bishops were hilarious Carmen-Sandiego like empire-hopping figures during the doctrinal conflicts. Good read.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Some of the Aryan bishops were hilarious Carmen-Sandiego like empire-hopping figures during the doctrinal conflicts. Good read. I'm the confused Persian bishops.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Arianism is a non-trinitarian form of Christianity. Jesus is divine, but he is lesser than God and only divine because God says so. It's a persistent interpretation because the Trinity isn't a very straightforward concept - really, many modern Christians are functionally Arian in how they conceive of the relationship between the Father and the Son as interaction between two beings rather than two parts of one being. It's something particularly pedantic and classist theologians have always loved to complain about. Now tell him about Pelagianism because some people react strangely when taught about that awful heresy that should have been expunged from the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Thanks for the great answers!HEY GAL posted:ask the religion thread, friends I'll crosspost there to get their take on it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
The thing with Arianism is that the local powers that be would usually take one side, so their opponents would take the other. So while a lot of people were rioting and purging over whether Jesus was of the same flesh as God, a lot were really after those coastal fucks who've been buying up all the good farmland for generations (or whatever).
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:It's something particularly pedantic and classist theologians have always loved to complain about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
Early Christianity is a huge mess of people getting angry as gently caress fighting over what look like very tiny trivial things to us. It's like reading the talk page on Wookiepedia or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:lol ok buddy I didn't mean Arianism in general dude, I meant the fact that laypeople are often de facto Arian is something that has been used to discount the validity of their ability to have opinions on theology Which strikes me as kind of classist or at least elitist, but I didn't mean to be a jerk about it
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Early Christianity is a huge mess of people getting angry as gently caress fighting over what look like very tiny trivial things to us. It's like reading the talk page on Wookiepedia or something. Listen. It's important whether Jesus is homousion or homoiousion with God. If you don't understand that, I have nothing to say to you.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Burn all heretics that do not accept that Bigger Jesus is not the truth and instead there is a Smaller Paul.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
ughhhh posted:You could read Mary Beards stuff. Speaking of which I've been reading SPQR and it's a really good read - though I get the sense she's simultaneously frustrated and fascinated by the fact that so much of Roman history is one-sided propaganda distorted by decades or centuries of oral storytelling before it was written down, and it's so difficult to actually just get hold of accounts of regular people as opposed to the major political and military figures of the day. I'd love to read more about the stuff like the Eunuch who is freaking out because his boyfriend has gone missing during the Civil War, or the stand-up comedian who had to talk his way out of being murdered on stage like the previous act was. I've just reached the second half of the book where she's promised to try and go more into depth on stuff like that so I'm looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Early Christianity is a huge mess of people getting angry as gently caress fighting over what look like very tiny trivial things to us. It's like reading the talk page on Wookiepedia or something. Well, in my opinion, Donatism at least seems like a real sort of thing that could be fought over
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
Gully Foyle posted:Well, in my opinion, Donatism at least seems like a real sort of thing that could be fought over Donatism is complete toxic waste to any church, not because of its issues with people who turncoated Christianity, but because of its insistence on the total spiritual purity of the clergy, to the point of making episcopal appointments and sacraments invalid. No church can function with such a burden on it, so the church had to destroy it.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Speaking of which I've been reading SPQR and it's a really good read - though I get the sense she's simultaneously frustrated and fascinated by the fact that so much of Roman history is one-sided propaganda distorted by decades or centuries of oral storytelling before it was written down, and it's so difficult to actually just get hold of accounts of regular people as opposed to the major political and military figures of the day. Just passed the same spot 2 days ago. It's a good book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 11:06
|
|
|
Making my way through the thread from the very beginning andCyrano4747 posted:I can't believe I'm actually trying to logically think this through in my head but here we go. . . well this was something
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:38
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Just passed the same spot 2 days ago. It's a good book. One bit I really dug in it was when she's talking about how even 2000+ years ago the Romans were looking back at their own (relatively) recent history/origins and saying,"Wait this is mostly bollocks, right? How DID we get started?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Maybe we all should have just converted to Manichaeism
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 08:12
|
|
|
This Extra History 4 part series goes into a good overview of the kind of disputes the early church faced along with the major players from each sect. This is part 1 and you can find the other 3 parts along with an extra explainer video about the stuff even they glossed over in the related vids. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ZZeCDGHJE
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Analogies relevant to the early Christian Church: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Been binging through those videos lately. The Justinian series, especialy part 9 which focuses on our favourite troll Khosrow, was very entertaining. They are currently in the middle of doing a series on the Gracchis.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:This Extra History 4 part series goes into a good overview of the kind of disputes the early church faced along with the major players from each sect. Ugh, Extra Credits is kinda the worst. Even if there weren't lots of issues with their coverage of the subject matter (I can't speak to these particular videos mind you, I don't remember poo poo about the early church), who would ever want to listen to that weird cartoon voice for >2 minutes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Ugh, Extra Credits is kinda the worst. Even if there weren't lots of issues with their coverage of the subject matter (I can't speak to these particular videos mind you, I don't remember poo poo about the early church), who would ever want to listen to that weird cartoon voice for >2 minutes? yeah, this
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Ugh, Extra Credits is kinda the worst. Even if there weren't lots of issues with their coverage of the subject matter (I can't speak to these particular videos mind you, I don't remember poo poo about the early church), who would ever want to listen to that weird cartoon voice for >2 minutes? well, apparently at least 3,728 people to the tune of $14,850 a month
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
I've watched a few series of theirs and the voice really got to me after about 10 episodes. No thanks. Funny side note: There's some ancient aliens / atlantis / flat earth theorist that apes the voice almost perfectly. I've clicked on a video someone posted of them without paying much attention, mistaking this crystal healing channel for extrahistory, and didn't realize it for months. e: here we go https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8NNHmV3QPw Morzhovyye fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
If you don't like the voice, I don't know what to tell you. I have no idea why they do it. I really gotta respect that spirit science guy. If you have these thoroughly insane delusions that you think are obvious from all the available evidence, you might as well put in the effort to make a cutesy little cartoon slideshow of your hour-long screed. It's kind of amazing to see someone else's elaborate fantasy world all laid out like it's straightforward. I lost it at the bit about the martian jews.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:28
|
|
|
Yeah, Spirit Science imitating Extra Credits is pretty ingenious. It reminds me of that "Pirates and Emperors" video that presents itself as a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon to advocate anarchy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQBWGo7pef8
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
Other than the subjectively annoying cartoon voice, can someone explain what is wrong with Extra Credits? They never claim to be anything more than a gateway into whatever subject matter they are introducing, and they insist that you only use them as a way to get basic knowledge on the subject and then do your own research. They are there as a fun way for people to get interested in history and that's pretty cool. And they encourage you to call them out on their bullshit, they use those comments to try to get things right in their "Lies" feature at the end each subject. So if you have a beef with them go ahead and contact them. I don't use them as a substitute for reading SPQR, but for what it is, I think they are cool and doing a good thing. Animal fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Etruscan colony of Latin people is so boring. We are the sons of wolf people; favored by Jupiter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
The fellow's voice isn't "cartoonish," it's not far off from the History of China's Chris Stewart, and his narration is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
It's cartoonish as hell, he's using a voice distorter. My main problem with it is that like all pop-history on the internet, even despite that narrator's apparent efforts, people take pretty much everything they hear on it as 100% gospel and don't hesitate to impart their newfound knowledge into other people. taken by its self though I don't think it's that bad or anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
Doing corrections is good, doing research and being correct is better (although it's good to establish that you're fallible). Hard to do with overviews and it's probably a net improvement but it's not great.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
Koramei posted:It's cartoonish as hell, he's using a voice distorter. Man, that sounds like a problem with people in general, not a pop history thing. I'm sure we've all waited in line at a grocery store behind someone who takes the National Enquirer at face value without even opening the magazine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:Man, that sounds like a problem with people in general, not a pop history thing. I'm sure we've all waited in line at a grocery store behind someone who takes the National Enquirer at face value without even opening the magazine. Yeah. Pretty much this. The thing you have to understand about the teaching of history is that it's basically two separate but complementary goals. 1) the imparting of knowledge about past events. 2) the development of critical thinking and analysis skills. Pop history, like any pop version of an academic subject, is heavy on the first for entertainment purposes and light on the second. The second requires the active engagement of the person studying it, while the first can be done really passively. Bill Nye, Neil Degrasse Tyson, Carl Sagen, all of them did basically the same thing for science. You get a bunch of basic knowledge on an interesting subject in an entertaining way, but you don't have the tools to really engage on your own critical thinking about the subject or question them in any meaningful way. It's 100% received wisdom as a result, which can annoy the piss out of anyone who knows enough to spot the areas where they have simplified complex ideas to make them digestible to the layman. The thing is that this is kind of OK. Number two up there is awesome and really important from an educational standpoint, but the simple reality is that not everyone wants or needs it. There is a lot of room for making people broadly aware of the historical context that their world has emerged out of. Frankly I think we need a lot more accessible, simple history designed for the general public. A history version of the pop science guys I listed above would be loving amazing. For a somewhat thread appropriate example, take Hardcore History. His series on World War One made me want to throw things, especially when he talked about the start of the war and the settlement. I know a lot about that stuff, so I was able to call some pretty loud bullshit on a lot of his conclusions and could spot where he was using really old scholarship to inform his narrative. That said, I know basically piss all about medieval and ancient history, so I've loved his bits on that. Was his Mongols one probably full of all the same over simplifications and wonky analysis as his WW1 one? Probably, but I also know about a thousand times more about Gengis Kahn now than I did before i listened, even if someone with a PhD in murderous nomads would grit his teeth at some of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:58 |
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:a PhD in murderous nomads
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 17:24
|
|